Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked? 864
patr1ck writes "Mac Daily News is reporting that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 processors has been leaked to the internet already. Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine. Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"
it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:3, Interesting)
Conspiracy? Apple leaked this? Please..... Apple is making people buy this with an Apple PC they have to return. They took and will take any step possible to stop this from happening.
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:2)
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:3)
Guess it's easier to confuse them than I thought.
D
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. That's why Apple will never switch to Int... No, wait. That's one thing I don't understand about the switch. Apple makes its money on hardware. If OS X can be hacked to run on every Intel box, Apple stands to lose big time. They must have some way figured out how to insure that OS X runs only on Apple hardware.
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple makes its money on Software. Apple is a software company. Apple makes hardware because they want their software to run well.
The idea that Apple is a hardware company is common, but misguided. Yes, they make hardware, but that's not the focus of their business model.
Apple makes more money selling an OS upgrade than selling a Mac. Apple makes as much from selling a piece of hardware that you could call that profit profit of the OS with free hardware, or profit of the hardware with free softwware.
If there were 40 million Mac clones being sold every year and Apple made as much from each one of them as it does from an iPod, Apple would be about 8 times more net revenue than it is now. IF it made as much as it does frome each OS upgrade, it would be 16 times as much revenue.
Macs are just a box for Apple software.
This is why so many people are perplexed at apple's actions.
The purpose of limiting OS X on intel to Apple hardware is to give them a chance to make the transition first *before* organizing a profitable cloning arrangement, assuming there are enough people who want to sell mac clones.
But you will never see Apple authorized crap hardware that doesn't work, like you do in the PC world.
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:3, Informative)
In computers it's the same story. If Apple is a software company, why did it kill the Mac Clones Program? [wikipedia.org] Acording to Wikipedia, Jobs said that the clone program was doomed to failure from the start; and since Apple mostly made money by selling computer hardware, for the most part, it ought not engage in a licensing program to reduc
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch your words. Apple doesn't trust its users, it has done research indicating either that its demographic won't pirate, or that coding anti-piracy systems wouldn't be worth the investment. Apple is a company, not a person.
So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (Score:5, Funny)
Who Has The Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
I am such a kleptomaniac.
Re:Who Has The Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (Score:5, Insightful)
agreed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:agreed (Score:5, Informative)
Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (Score:2, Insightful)
So perhaps there's something to the conspiracy theory after all. I wonder if it would run on my older Compaq PC with a Pentium III and all Intel components.
I have a PowerMac G5 dual, which would surely outperform my old 700mhz Compaq by miles, but I have to admit my curiosity is piqued.
D
Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (Score:2)
And, of course, because they've compiled the iLife applications for x86, and want to prove that MacOS X on x86 runs real native applications. It's hard to argue that video editing, music playback, and photo organizing aren't "real".
This may answer the question (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, assuming this actually *has* leaked... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This may answer the question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This may answer the question (Score:5, Insightful)
This version will no doubt expire at the end of 2006 when you have to return the development machines to Apple.
Re:This may answer the question (Score:3, Insightful)
This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Insightful)
Accidental or not, you can bet that this development has MS in a cold sweat. Seriously, if it wasn't for piracy, MS would never have gained their stranglehold. Now, the sudden possibility of OSX spreading frictionlessly into Windows' marketshare signals a major change in the commercial landscape.
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:2)
I don't think piracy had much of an influence at that point.
Since corporations buy most word processors and they almost always buy their software instead of pirating, I doubt that piracy had much impact in the rise of Word over WordPerfect and the like. It was better than the competition, something hard to remember nowadays.
Pir
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the widespread uptake driven by piracy is what got their software to "that Point".
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Interesting)
The "developer machines" running P4, about 4GHZ, were sold to attendants (some 2000-4000 people, I'd say) for $999, I'd say a bargain price. Now what's the chance a brand spanking new computer with brand spanking new ultra secret operating system gets stolen from one of 2000 nerds? Conspiracy or not, the leak was something that had to happen.
Now the tricky news. The machines are just for development before the official release and are to be returned somewhere aro
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Informative)
1. They weren't sold.
2. They haven't shipped yet.
3. They're for any higher-level developers, not WWDC attendees.
4. They don't come with an installer, it's pre-loaded.
5. They will be individually watermarked.
Other than that, your post was quite helpful.
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox is free and easy to install, but the vast majority of people still use IE6 (and even IE5) which most agree is inferior. If people can't be buggered to install a simple browser, why would they ever bother to switch their entire OS without OEMs being in on it?
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, once Apple makes the switch to Intel, people should be able to run Windows and Linux on them. So you'll get everything you'll get from buying any other x86 machine, but you'll also be able to run OSX trouble-free.
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Insightful)
ie: if it runs like crap, people who see it are going to implicitly blame Apple--even though it is totally not their fault. This will hurt Apple's image.
The ability to run MacOSX on anything but official Apple hardware is very bad for Apple.
One nice thing about running on Int
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Funny)
What? You mean that Windows2 thing we needed to use to start Aldus Pagemaker was actually an operating system?
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Informative)
Windows - the people that would have to switch to hurt MS are the ones that won't even look at Linux because it's 'different'. They are either comfortable with the Windows way of doing things or they are barely computer literate. Gnome and KDE have themes to make things look/work very similar to Windows. Apple makes no excuses, they know the 'best' way to do things. These users are already used to MS's 'best' way.
Linux - OS X has many of th
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Funny)
WILLIAM the Conquerer died in 1086 (X86), 20 YEARS after INVADING England and beating KING HAROLD who received an ARROW (ie: pointer) in his EYE (i).
HAROLD is also the name of HAROLD EDGERTON, who became famous for his high-speed images of bullets piercing APPLES.
So, twenty years ago WILLIAM (Gates) killed APPLE. But now WILLIAM is dying. WILLIAM was followed by his son, RUFUS THE RED (ie: Longhorn), who was incredibly unpopular and ironically died from an ARROW in his EYE.
It ALL FITS.
As microsoft prooved... (Score:5, Insightful)
the ire of popularity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the ire of popularity (Score:5, Insightful)
slashdotted, here's article text... (Score:5, Informative)
Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:14 PM EST
"There is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components," Jeff Harrell writes for The Shape of Days. "The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs... I estimate that we're down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.) If I can think through this stuff, Apple's management can think through this stuff. This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I've ever seen."
"According to reports, Apple's bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed... Given Apple's experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple's management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife '05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation. As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs. Apple's giving their potential future customers a free taste, that's what they're doing. It's a try-before-you-buy deal," Harrell writes.
Also, full article (by Jeff Harrell @ ShapeOfDays.com)...
Mac OS X on Intel: Try before you buy?
Item the first: Apple is not staffed entirely by idiots. This is self-evident, and it's important to what follows. Keep this in mind as we proceed.
Item the second: The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he's very sorry and that it won't happen again.)
Item the third: It's safe to assume, given the timeframe, that the developer transition kits that Apple will ship within a couple of weeks will be fundamentally similar to, if not outright identical to, the Power Macs on display at the conference.
Item the fourth: The Power Macs on display at the show run a one-off build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 that incorporates the few necessary changes that were required to get the operating system running on the Intel hardware. This build includes Apple's bundled iLife '05 suite of applications.
Item the fifth: Because Intel's LaGrande security technology is not yet incorporated into any shipping products, it's safe to assume that it's not present in these transition-kit computers.
Item the sixth: Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.
Item the seventh: Because the Intel version of Mac OS X that's being distributed to developers is a one-off build, future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it, making it totally useless to anybody who's not a developer of Mac software.
Item the eighth: Given it
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill Gates said to be ... (Score:4, Funny)
Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:2, Funny)
I'd be more interested to know where I could download it
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Driver Modules (Score:2)
Re:Driver Modules (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Driver Modules (Score:4, Informative)
OS X kernel modules are kernel "extensions," so the tools are all kext*. kextload, kextstat, and kextunload.
But yeah, no dice on "well let's just load up FreeBSD drivers." Not gonna happen.
universal binaries (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:universal binaries (Score:2)
(For small values of whole)
Re:universal binaries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:universal binaries (Score:3, Informative)
If they released versions of OS X that were fat binaries, someone outside of Apple would have noticed and said something, and we would all know about it already. Jobs is almost certainly talking about internal builds that Apple has been doing to ensure compatability for a possible transition.
Serial Number (Score:5, Interesting)
Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 (Score:5, Funny)
As inevitable as it is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple makes killer hardware, which they make their money on, and set bar for what people are willing to pay for an OS AND for the quality that they should expect.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)
Either Microsoft can make the cut or it never could. They won't be able to rely on pulling anti-trust moves again. That sort of stuff goes on in backrooms and needs darkness to exist. Now, there's a light on in the room.
Fortuitous accident? (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue.
Or not. Apple might utilize this event just to market OS-X86 to new users, users that would otherwise not have bought a Mac, and increase their future sales of Intel-based Macs. However, this strategy would work only on a fraction of those who tried OS-X86 for size, so the effect would be limited.
I say, Apple, have some balls and start selling OS-X86 and related applications! Stick it to Microsoft and cause a stir in the desktop OS marketplace.
Re:Fortuitous accident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty sneaky, sis... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.
As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:
1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners.
2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.
Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.
Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.
So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.
Leaked?? (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone wonder .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac OS X x86 fixes this.
It's got a unix touch yet it is user friendly (unlike almost any other flavor of unix). It performs well and doesn't suffer from any of the trademark Microsoft deficiencies (security fixes every week, poor usability, an indifferent software vendor, the occasional BSOD & a hefty pricetag). Users apparently seem to like it and there's a decent selection of OSS and commercial desktop apps (including MS office!).
Apple should be able to get 5% marketshare of the PC OS market within a year or so. I expect that there is a turning point where the marketshare will grow rapidly at the cost of windows. For example, a deal with Dell might be such a turningpoint. That means a steady flow of revenue that outperforms anything that can be realized through Apple hardware sales. Most of it is profits because they already did the hard work of writing & porting the software.
I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this.
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a similar business model led to the bankruptcy of Be Inc.?
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:4, Insightful)
I comparison, Apple has a proven OS with real life applications written for it. They have mindshare. They have the iPod. They have the brand. With the possible exception of Dell, I think Microsoft have shown the world that the real big bucks in the PC world is in software, not hardware.
So if someone, someday, propoes to Apple that they should sell OS X separately for PCs, I'd say that's a bet that they should be willing to take.
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I agree.
"[Apple has] mindshare."
Yes, and tons of it. They also have great reputation and brand recognition, in most regards.
But look at IBM. Does IBM have mindshare? Hell yes. Does IBM have good reputation? Arguable, but certainly not all too negative these days. What happened to OS/2? It never took off, and since it let Windows apps run inside, developers just coded for Windows and let OS/2 users eat the emulated software
No real Windows users.... (Score:4, Funny)
so where the hell is it? (Score:3, Funny)
slashdot is slacking today!
a disturbence in the force, I sense...
I just downloaded it... (Score:5, Funny)
I want it (Score:4, Funny)
Can you run it under Virtual PC on the G5?
The specs on the Intel PowerMac (Score:5, Informative)
Great potential for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
1. To secure the final production version, Apple could run a third train of the Darwin kernel leaving PPC, x86 and a new MacIntel version. Assuring than only OSXx86 only runs on Apple hardware and accommodating the speculated differences between generic x86 PCs and proprietary Apple x86 powered computers. For instance, just because the XBOX360 can run on a PowerMac G5 doesn't meant the the final production version will or ever will again.
2. Give out a live CD based on the generic x86 Darwin kernel to entice PC users to switch. Similar to what Be did, but actually get people to switch..
3. If MS chooses not to continue development of VPC as a defensive move, Apple could still look to VMWare to provide virtualization for running Windows applications for those that have switched. Or integrate Bochs, Plex86, WINE, etc..
4. Apple could allow dual-booting of Windows and OSXx86. Although this is less likely to happen --remember Win95 / Dos6.22-Win3.11?
Apple's employees aren't dumb. They're primarily interested in keeping existing Mac users and developers happy by creating things like Rosetta and universal binaries. To think that Apple wouldn't apply the same philosophies towards disatisfied Windows users would be ignorant.
Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
So I say the idea of running MacOS X on any commodity PC is, at the moment, a complete myth.
The torrent is a troll. (Score:3, Informative)
Like shooting fish in a barrel, really.
GNAA? (Score:3, Informative)
its a fake!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
It's a fake (Score:3, Informative)
Re:An era has passed (Score:2)
And Apple is nowhere close to becoming another Microsoft. But thanks for playing.
Re:An era has passed (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Apple becoming another Microsoft, I'm sure their shareholders would be delighted to see that happen.
Re:An era has passed (Score:2)
Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?
Not really a fanatic...but I think it sucks. Guess they gave up on trying to do things differently...sadly, it actually looked like it was starting to work for them, too.
the apple strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers. Apple does not need new Killer apps to seed the desire to purchase new apples. So such a broad based seeding of the OS does them little good in that respect.
Now to answer cringley's question. "Why would they pre-announce the swtich a year ahead if it is so easy to port apps". People fret they will "osbourne" themselves when current apple users hold off purchasing a new apple waiting for the intel ones.
I suspect that an equally large effect may work the opposite direction. There 10 times as many high-end PC people out there that are about to upgrade their machines and may start to think. Hmmmm this new apple hardware might run windows, maybe I'll put off buying my next Dell-shitbox machine and see what apple rolls out. So this way by pre-announcing they cant get that meme going for a year. Thought's like that lead over the course of a year to the thought of maybe trying out OSX while they are at it.
And of course there's the developers that need to be stroked. gotta give them a year's notice. and apple has the cash reserves to suck-up the osbourne effect.
the apple strategy as a lymeric (Score:5, Funny)
Who smiled as he rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
with intel inside
and the smile on the face of the Tiger.
Re:the apple strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the apple strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Phil Schiller is on record stating that Apple won't do anything to stop people from booting Windows.
Re:probably buggy too (Score:5, Insightful)
It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.
And do you really think Windows has security issues because it runs on an x86 chip?
Re:probably buggy too (Score:3, Interesting)
This claim is just silly; anyone who's ported code between UNIX machines knows that simply being compiled with GCC doesn't give portability. MacOS X is extremely portable because it was originally written very carefully to be portable (NeXTSTEP ran on 680x0, x86, HP-PA/RISC, SPARC) and Apple has carefully maintained that portability.
That being said, I agree with your main point -- MacOS X is highly portable, and an
Re:probably buggy too (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I think a lot of people have missed an interesting dynamic with all this: Apple are doing the opposite replacement to the usual one - LOW END Macs will be the first on Intel - HIGH END the year after, the exact opposite to the usual "filter down" policy.
Personally I think this is because a lot of the "high end" applications lean hard on AltiVec, and the Intel chips have nothing as good - it'll take a while for Intel to have performance that beats the PowerPC970FX in ALL areas...
The Mac "fanboys" had it right that the PPC has better performance in areas that matter to the Mac (mostly as Apple have favoured applications well suited to that chip). I think the biggest problem was that the G5 (as Apple call it) seems no closer to fitting in a PowerBook, and laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales (in all PCs not just Macs). This has been forced on Apple, not chosen by them, and not because the top end Macs are too slow. (though the need for liquid cooling isn't a good sign!)
However I'll admit, I was wrong - I didn't think this would happen (mostly because of Apple using AltiVec so much).
Re:why aren't I surprised? (Score:2)
Re:seriously doubt it was planned (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, it'll be compared to Windows, which, despite massive improvements in stability, still has a reputation for crashing, not to mention malware problems. Simply stated, it's easier to look good when you're standing next to someone ugly. Windows is really ugly in a lot of ways. You don't have to be at the top of your game to look better than it.
Add in the fact that anyone tech savvy enough to track down a copy and install it, (ok, it probably won't be terribly hard, but there will be a knowledge barrier to stop my grandmother from doing it), anyone who can figure that out will understand that it's just a development version, that a lot of software is running slower through Rosetta, and that this is just a taste, not the total package Apple will be selling in a year or two.
I think Apple will come out looking pretty good after this. Sure, there will be some who criticize, but there always are. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy, but truly believe that there are plenty of compelling reasons to use OSX over Windows, that most people who get the chance to try it out will want to switch. Anything that gives people a good opportunity to try (moreso than dicking around on the machines in the Apple Store for a half hour), is a good thing.
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:5, Insightful)
The development machine uses an Intel chipset, an Intel CPU, a Phoenix BIOS, an Intel GPU. This, btw, is largely different from the actual 2006+ Intel-based Macintoshes, which I'm almost positive will use an Apple chipset, an Intel CPU, an ATI or nVidia GPU, an Apple motherboard, and some custom form of BIOS, EFI (most likely) or Open Firmware. But either way: Mac OS X obviously runs on a machine that's pretty much a typical vanilla x86 machine.
"Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet."
Jobs said two weeks. That was Monday, so it's been almost a week. Furthermore, of the thosuands of WWDC attendees, all were allowed to use development machines on site. There's no reason to believe that it was hard for them to just do a straight copy of the entire hard drive and burn it on DVD, then look into it further at home and try and make an installable OS out of it.
"Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid)."
Because we all know that Apple uses serial numbers, copy protection and fingerprinting all over their place in Mac OS X. Not. While the server versions have a serial number, the client versions have *no* protection against piracy whatsoever. They never did, and there's no reason to believe they will now.
"This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble."
Why do you assume large companies, when small shareware houses like Panic are at WWDC as well?
Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, Apple also distributes media via snail mail, rather than images throug
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:5, Funny)
Now all we need is a dupe of this story tomorrow.
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:From where came the ipod? (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, no. Apple was doing fine, just not "great", before the iPod.
"Without song swapping on the net, that was around long before Apple"
Song swapping on the net was around long before Apple was founded in 76? Interesting. What net is this you're speaking of? ARPAnet?
Re:Time to get to work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Torrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If I wanted FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I wanted FreeBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not really - the grandparent poster was pointing out that OS X is not equal to FreeBSD and followed up with a rhetorical question - if this *was* equal to FreeBSD, then how come there are applications, such as iPhoto, that won't run on FreeBSD but will run on OS X? Because it's not equal to FreeBSD, obviously.
Without resorting to trolling and/or name-calling or casting people into stereotypes (as every other direct ascendent of this comment), let's settle for the facts that a) FreeBSD and OS X are both good, solid OSes with their own benefits, and that b) FreeBSD and OS X are not equal. If you think that OS X has absolutely nothing useful over plain FreeBSD and that you're just happy using FreeBSD, then good for you! Keep using FreeBSD, and keep not using OS X, but there's no need for you to flame others over it (or for others to flame you over it, for that matter).
A minor suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for being offtopic, but I think the next slashdot poll should be "What sort of scripted and automated action should we take against posts containg the phrase 'Soviet Russia'?"
Options should range from "Instant permaban" and "Slashdot their servers" to "Order nasty russian hitmen to do what's necessary".
Seriously though. There should be a slashdot poll on that exact topic.
Re:Live CDs / DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
10.3 is a fake (Score:3, Informative)
ed2k://|file|Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel Version).iso|666000000|7d9587606f550c2767667b09c1
So don't bother with it. OTOH, you get great DL speeds
Re:Message to Steve Jobs or anyone else (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with hardware, that 10% margin you quote does not go completely into the profit column of the ledger, in fact most projects (hardware or software) will be in the red for the first two quarters as amortized costs are recouped, if not longer.
Any bug fixes and support will be charged against those margin
Re:So why haven't they bought Macs? (Score:4, Insightful)
This hasn't changed with a move to x86. If the Mac OS is all they need, why didn't they all buy Mini's?
These non technocratic folks, as you put it, seem unlikely to install a totally new OS. You don't need to be a geek to use Linux, just to install it.
There is one simple critical fact that will never change. The vast majority of people will use the OS that ships with their computers and that will never change.
Windows succeeds on the sales of Dells, OSX will sink or swim on the sales of Macs.
Selling an OS that is not tied to HW is a doomed enterprise. A big part of the Microsoft push has always been about getting their OS bundled with Hardware.